TAMARIND FOODS Vs. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-M/s. Tamarind Foods, a Restaurant, aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by the respondent 2-Joint Commissioner (East), BBMP, vide Annexure-A, dated 26-12-2017 calling upon the petitioner-restaurant to close the said pub/public bar or the Restaurant on the roof top of the Building, which is a commercial building, on the ground that a lot of complaints have been received from the public/residents of nearby area due to high noise pollution and other public nuisance caused by the business activities of the petitioner-restaurant. The said Joint Commissioner has called upon the petitioner-restaurant to close down the said establishment and if such an action is not taken, the needful action will be taken against the petitioner-restaurant under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

(2.) Mr. Shamanth Naik, learned Counsel for Mr. Syed Khamruddin, appearing for the petitioner-Restaurant has vehemently submitted that the petitioner-Restaurant holds due and proper Trade Licence granted to it for the year 2012-2013, vide Annexure-C and he has also obtained Food Safety Licence, Value Added Tax Registration Certificate and Registration Certificate from the respondents. But, the respondent-Authority has suddenly clamped down upon the said petitioner's roof top restaurant and has asked to close down the same straightaway on the allegations which are unfounded nor it is based on any adverse material against the petitioner-restaurant. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Shamanth Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Restaurant has relied upon certain judgments of this Court and one of them being in the case in S.N. Sinha v. State of Karnataka and others decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14-12-2011 reported in 2012(2) Kar. L.J. 701 , to support the contention that a notice in its vague form, as it has been given in the present case vide Annexure-A, dated 26-12-2017, is no notice in the eye of law and, therefore, the petitioner-Restaurant cannot be called upon either to show cause before the respondent-authority or to close down its business activities without being heard. He also submitted that the impugned communication Annexure-A, dated 26-12-2017, though labeled as a notice, is, in fact, an order against the petitioner-restaurant requiring it to close down its business activities though admittedly it is licensed to carry on such trade at the specified premises.